Who says proportional representation has to be baffling?

The long-promised Special Committee on Electoral Reform has started its consultations on ways to make our elections fairer and more reflective of voters’ intentions. A large and growing number of Canadians agree that proportional representation (PR) is the best way to ensure a fair and healthy democracy.

A basic principle is at stake: equal power for equal votes. The Constitution guarantees every Canadian citizen a right to representation, to have their voice heard in government. Without PR, that right is enjoyed only by some.

But there’s more to the PR debate than principles. The solutions on offer — single transferrable vote, multiple-member ridings, and so forth — are often criticized on practical grounds. We want to address three common complaints: that PR is too complicated for voters to understand, that it will diminish local representation, and that it’s too costly and difficult to implement.

These criticisms may be true of some PR models proposed in the past — including the ones debated at the provincial level in British Columbia, Ontario and Prince Edward Island. But complexity, hassle and expense are not built-in features of PR.

In fact, it’s possible to implement a system of proportional representation in Canada that requires no changes to the ballot, the voting process, the number and size of ridings, or the number and role of MPs.

This system is called Single Member District Proportional Representation (SMDPR) because it retains the notion of one local MP per riding. Created by Canadian thinkers and reform advocates, SMDPR is designed to address the unique demands of the Canadian political landscape.

It doesn’t sacrifice local representation or transparency — no multiple MPs, mega-ridings or closed lists here. Nor does it force voters to grapple with a complicated new ballot; they’d simply mark their ‘X’ as they do now.

Under SMDPR, Canadians vote the same way they always have, using the same familiar ballot. When the votes are counted, seats are assigned proportionally by province or territory — a party that gets 40 per cent of the vote gets 40 per cent of the seats.

Each party’s slate of candidates in the province is ranked by how many actual votes they received. The more popular a candidate was with voters, the higher that candidate is ranked. It’s much like the “list” systems used in countries around the world — but instead of parties choosing the rank of list candidates, voters do.

Finally, the top-ranked candidates from each party receive that party’s allotted seats in the province. There’s one proviso: Each riding gets one — and only one — representative, who must have run in that riding. If two or more top-ranked candidates ran in the same riding, whichever one received the most votes becomes the riding’s MP.

Despite its simplicity, tests on past elections have shown that SMDPR works — and is highly proportional.

It doesn’t sacrifice local representation or transparency — no multiple MPs, mega-ridings or closed lists here. Nor does it force voters to grapple with a complicated new ballot; they’d simply mark their ‘X’ as they do now.

Changing the focus from ‘winning’ under our current system to ‘power transfers’ under SMDPR means greater accountability for MPs, and an end to both strategic voting and parties sweeping provinces. The adaptability of SPDPR could also address any potential regionalization of parties.

All voters would know that their voices were being heard — in that their votes helped determine each party’s seat allocation. Under our current system, over half the voters have no such consolation.

SMDPR transfers power equally, respects and strengthens our longstanding tradition of single-member geographic representation, and requires no complicated changes to the way Canadians vote or the way MPs do their jobs. It can be implemented with minimal expense and hassle.

All told, the potential rewards for our democracy from SMDPR vastly outweigh the risks.

Don’t let anyone tell you PR will be too complicated and expensive for Canada. With a little creativity, PR can, and should, be adapted to our country’s unique needs and our electorate’s reasonable concerns.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

More from iPolitics

Author

John E. Trent is a Fellow of the Centre on Governance at the University of Ottawa and founder of National Capital Region chapter of Fair Vote Canada. Dr. Denis M. Falvey is a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of Canada and author of Canadian Democracy, Eh? Peter Black is a former policy analyst with the Saskatchewan and Canadian governments. Matt Risser is a co-author of Better Choices: Voting System Alternatives for Nova Scotia,